Talk:Jefferson Davis/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Strode characterization of Union navy

@Rjensen: Did Strode actually characterize the Union navy as "large" at the beginning of the conflict, 1860? I thought that it was small and furthermore dispersed on remote stations overseas at the time of secession.

The U.S. Congress dominated by Southern legislators did not admit the expense of a U.S. navy, either large or modern, before 1860 --- the British navy effectively protected cotton shipments. But Britain did not become a belligerent to break the Union blockade before the ironclads were produced in quantity.

The Union navy which could enforce a blockade on the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, and dominate the Mississippi, and all its major tributaries, was two plus years away, and there were no ironclads at all in 1860. And when there were Union ironclads in quantity, Britain would not become a belligerent.

Every place Confederates innovated even one ironclad which could put to sea, they broke the Union blockade, and even those which were not sea-worthy compromised the blockade. It was not reestablished until Union ironclads could overwhelm them, and all of those Union ships of the Navy were built after 1861 for the war effort. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not check Strode (I was following McPherson p 313 which I ought to cite). The Union Navy was the largest in the western hemisphere in 1860, and had a global reach. In 1861 it took over lots of riverboats as well. Its blockade was quite effective as early as late 1861--you needed a specially built small blockade runner to beat it. The CSA built warships--all failures that never lasted more than a few weeks at most. The Confederacy never "broke" the blockade (well maybe for 24 hours at the start of the Monitor/Merrimac battle). Rjensen (talk) 08:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
It sounds as though the Lost Cause complaints of a "paper blockade" are unfounded after all. I had not thought about it like that. I guess it is hard to struggle out from under the influence of (Virginia) cousin Ludwell Johnson, even long after his death. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Stamps in "Legacy" section

I have added images for the first CSA stamp, 5-cent Davis, and U.S. postage Stone Mountain Memorial stamp. The 32-cent Davis commemorative in the 1995 American Civil War series is linked in the footnote due to restrictions against external links appearing in the body of an article.

And some editors in the Philately Project have objected to using an image of a non-free content WP:NFC directly in an article unless there is a literary controversy surrounding the stamp itself. --- Although WP:NFCI. guideline examples, says, "the most common cases where non-free images may be used... #3. Stamps and currency: "For identification of the stamp or currency, not the subjects depicted on it." --- editors elsewhere object to using such an image in an article where it would identify a stamp honoring Jefferson Davis, saying instead descriptive language would accomplish the same thing.

I do not yet understand their reluctance since there is no free-use postage stamp issued by the USPS since 1978 ... and non-free stamp content is permissible to identify the commemorative stamp itself, which it would be doing if the image appeared in the "Legacy" section. Likewise in prohibited images #8, "A Barry Bonds baseball card [may not be used], to illustrate the article on Barry Bonds." [But] "The use may be appropriate to illustrate a passage on the card itself; see Billy Ripkin article." In the case of the Davis commemorative, the stamp image would illustrate a passage on the stamp itself honoring Davis.

Any comments or observations would be welcome. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Health of wife and children

Davis's poor health is a matter for the lede--but not the deaths of his wife and children. Much more interesting is who his first wife was-- daughter of Zachary Taylor. The job of the lede is to stress what is important about Davis. Compare the Lincoln article which does NOT mention the deaths of his kids (or Ann Rutledge) despite their impact on him. Rjensen (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Currently the lede gives a brief mention that he had a family. This is an important fact about him. It also gives context for his ongoing health problems; he almost died of malaria. Just because the Lincoln article doesn't mention anything comparable in the lede doesn't mean this article should not. Omnedon (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the job of the lede is to provide a brief summary the article. That's similar, but not quite the same as, stressing what is important about the topic. His career as a soldier, his career in politics, the fact that he was a plantation owner and supported slavery, his role in the CSA, his capture and later life, his health -- all are properly mentioned in the lede. To omit any mention of his family would be to omit an important part of his life. Actually I think somewhat undue weight is given to his failures; they are significant and should be mentioned, but the better part of two paragraphs deal with this. Yes, he is most notable for his presidency and the fall of the confederacy; so I am not proposing a change in that at this time. But I do feel that the mention of family is entirely appropriate as part of a brief summary. Omnedon (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
The important thing about his family is his father in law was President Taylor . Rjensen (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
"The important thing"? Again, the lede summarizes the article. That Taylor was his father-in-law may be an important fact, but it is not a fact that occupies much space in the article, compared to Davis' own family. Omnedon (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
yes that proves that the section was not written by someone who knows much about him. Again: Why is the death of his first wife important for people to know? Rjensen (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I think there's a place for some family in the lead, and I would also agree that mentioning a single wife out of two, and one admittedly tragic aspect is not actually a summary of his interesting private life (His second wife Varina Davis wasn't a footnote and has quite an interesting and well-documented article of her own). It shouldn't necessarily be squished in the same paragraph as his political career.__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Rjensen, why are you becoming offensive? "Rampant ignorance about his family"? Please refrain from personal attacks. Consider also that this article went through peer review, GA review, FA review... Not that it can't be improved, because any article can always be improved. But if you can't be civil please say nothing at all. Omnedon (talk) 03:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Plantation vs. political life.

I see a bit of back-and-forthing over how to describe his relationship with the issue of slavery. If forced to make a choice (not that we can't have both), I think it's more important to summarize his public advocacy and legislation regarding the issue, than focussing only on his plantation. As far as slaveowners went, according to Cooper, Jefferson was neither the worst or the best of the lot. I wouldn't describe him as being somehow notably good or bad as a slaveholder, beyond due weight given to how bad it was to be an average slaveholder. His public career is something else. Here he was highly notable for vocal, historically significant, and unequivocal support. According to sources, the issue of slavery was decisive and directly expressed in his concerns with the acceptance of California, the acceptance of Texas, his political actions regarding Cuba, and the laws on the table connected to his resignation. That's where sources say his views on slavery were of importance.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Shorter comment: if anything gets rewritten, it shouldn't be framed as a passive acceptance of the idea of slavery. It was active. It was career-significant. It involved activity of great historical interest beyond his own plantation.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

pagination in Cooper 2000 bio -- are there different page Numbers?

people seem to get different page numbers ... I have the paperback o "Jefferson Davis, American" and its page numbers are the same as the Amazon edition at http://www.amazon.com/Jefferson-Davis-American-William-Cooper/dp/0375725423/ and the same as google at http://books.google.com/books?id=7ZmyX5GqNgcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:jefferson+intitle:davis+inauthor:cooper&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zxl1U-PAKZLYoAT0j4B4 In my copy p 248 is a detailed coverage of his slave holdings. But North Shoreman gives page 229 which is about an election campaign. There is another book called "Jefferson Davis and the Civil War Era" with a totally different text. Rjensen (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm using the hardcover version. Page 248 in this edition falls in Chapter 9 "I ... Have a Field of Usefulness". On Amazon if you check the "Look Inside" feature you get different pagination in the paperback and the hardcover -- Chapter 9 in the paperback starts on page 257; in the hardcover the chapter begins on page 240. I checked footnote no. 15 which refers to page 65 in Cooper -- this is the first page of Chapter 4 in the hardback and is the correct page for this info; this chapter doesn't start until page 70 in the paperback. There definitely is a discrepancy between the two editions. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
OK thanks for the detective work. We need to fix it: One solution is to cite two editors 2000A (hardcover) and 2000B (paperback). Rjensen (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Formatting

When editing this article, please take care with formatting issues. Several recent edits have caused issues with this, especially in terms of references; one caused a warning template to be added to the top of the article. This has all been resolved now; but featured article reviews are very picky about such things as use of en-dashes in page ranges, consistent punctuation, et cetera. We don't want to run the risk of this article losing its status. Omnedon (talk) 13:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed – with the feature date nearing, greater than usual care needs to be taken not to introduce problems or instability into the article, and I do see that some recent edits have done that. I would definitely suggest that now is not the best time to embark on significant article editing unless there's some very compelling need to do so. ╠╣uw [talk] 13:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Naming the baby Jefferson F. Davis

Historians agree the baby was named Jefferson F. Davis because the father Samuel greatly admired the sitting President of the United States, who was also the leader of the Republican Party. None of the sources mention anything about the Declaration of Independence, which was not widely associated with Jefferson in 1808. As for the middle name, Cooper says there was an initial F but the actual word was unknown. Some historians such as Strode suggest the middle name was "Finis" (the end) but there was no contemporary evidence for that; genealogists like http://dgmweb.net/JeffDavisHome.html and https://jeffersondavis.rice.edu/Genealogy.aspx do not mention it; and it smacks of a joke told later in life when Jefferson Davis, the tenth born, explained he was the last of the children. Rjensen (talk) 00:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

And there is a debate on his year of birth. The William Davis bio says "While most twentieth-century biographers have accepted Davis's late-life emendation of his birth year from 1807 to 1808, it seems unwarranted and somewhat illogical. Throughout his life he repeatedly came back to the 1807 date, even as late as 1882." William C. Davis (1996). Jefferson Davis: The Man and His Hour. p. 709. The Rice genealogy compiled by the experts at the JD [Papers is in doubt Rjensen (talk) 01:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
The Declaration is important historically, and the sentence you removed establishes historical context. That other sources don't mention the Declaration in connection with Samuel Davis doesn't mean that this sentence should be removed. Omnedon (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Challenge: if this is to be featured we need to get the facts straight. Please quote what Strode says about it (I do not have his book handy). Rjensen (talk) 02:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Are you claiming that Samuel Davis was not a young man in 1776? It is a factual statement and establishes context. He was born in 1756 and fought in the Revolutionary War. Omnedon (talk) 02:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm asking for proof that Strode said it played a major role--all of the other bios said it was because TJ was president at the time and Samuel admired TJ. Peterson says the Declaration was not much talked about in the South by 1808 because of the slavery issue. Rjensen (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
The problem: yes everyone knew about the Declaration but in 1808 it was NOT widely known that Jefferson wrote it. That would come in the 1820s. So they idea that Samuel linked the Declaration to naming his baby needs some solid evidence. Does Strode have that evidence? No otrher biographer has found it. Rjensen (talk) 13:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
The article doesn't claim that there is a link between the Declaration and the baby's name. It simply makes a factual statement which provides historical context. Omnedon (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
It gets the context wrong because it suggests Samuel knew Jefferson wrote the Declaration and that was a factor in naming the baby (Samuel greatly admired TJ). there is zero evidence of a link so readers get are misled. Strode used 1776 as a literary device to establish Samuel's age, which is not relevant here. Misleading readers is a serious flaw at evaluation time. Rjensen (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
It is not misleading. It is a factual statement. And his age is relevant. It is a link with origin of the nation, not with JD's name. Omnedon (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
If the passage suggests that Jefferson F=Davis was a nation-founder like Thomas Jefferson in 1776, that is pro-Confederacy "Lost Cause" POV and has no place here. Rjensen (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Given that the source indicates that Samuel named his son in honor of Thomas Jefferson, I don't see anything amiss about the passage in question. It doesn't say that Davis got his name because of the Declaration, or even because Jefferson was President; it simply notes that Jefferson authored the Declaration (when Samuel was young) and was President, which are useful contextual data for the reader to have given the statement that Samuel named his son in admiration of Jefferson. ╠╣uw [talk] 01:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
No, Rjensen, it's not suggesting that Jefferson Davis is somehow like Thomas Jefferson. You're reading things into it that are not there. Omnedon (talk) 01:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing there, it's "synthesis" in Wiki terms and that is not allowed. Why was 1776 chosen? It was not an imnporttant year for JD or his father--there is no evidence whatever that his father had any special reaction to 1776, and it's quite unlikely he knew TJ's role. That leaves Lost Cause ideology: because JDavis admirers consider him a Jefferson-like founder of his nation, so 1861 is another 1776. We better take this out --many people (like me) consider it blatant POV and others will simply learn zero about Jefferson Davis. Now JD himself started this POV in his inaugural address as president in 1861. Cooper says JD was "Fusing the southern past to the southern present, he said the southern people had "merely asserted a right which the Declaration of Independence of 1776 had defined to be inalienable."" [paperback & google p 354] For evidence that the Lost Cause folks are using this POV connection today see R., Kennedy, James. Was Jefferson Davis Right?. Pelican Publishing. p. 259.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Rjensen (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
There is no synthesis going on here. A featured article needs to be interesting as well as informative. This did come from Strode, and I see nothing wrong with it; it is informative and establishes historical context. Where were you when all the work was being done on this article to bring it up to GA and then FA? Omnedon (talk) 02:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
it's loading the article with neo-Confederate code words --that's POV. Its the Lost Cause people who over and over again try to tie JDavis to 1776. It makes the article look and be slanted to pick up their rhetoric even unknowingly. Rjensen (talk) 02:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh, for goodness' sake. There are no code words here, and Davis isn't being tied to 1776. You're becoming more offensive all the time. Please tone it down. Omnedon (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Well let's start with Strode--who was notorious as a spokesman for the Lost Cause. Here's a leading scholarly journal on Strode's bio: "His [JD's] enemies are devils, and his friends, like Davis himself, have been canonized. Strode not only attempts to sanctify Davis but also the Confederate point of view, and this study should be relished by those vigorously sympathetic with the Lost Cause." [The Journal of American History Sep., 1965 in JSTOR Rjensen (talk) 02:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Rjensen: Your fears of secret "neo-Confederate code words" seem increasingly divorced from anything that the article is actually saying. Personally I see nothing to suggest that the small passage in question is not factual and appropriate context on the matter of Davis's naming. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Lead problem

The following sentence in the lead needs editing: "As operator of a large cotton plantation ... he ... was well known for his support of slavery in the Senate." But I'm not sure what it should be edited to say. It was clearly not intended to mean that he supported the provision of slaves to Senators to assist them with their duties as Senators, but I don't know enough about the subject to know whether it should really be saying "... he ... was well known in the Senate for his support of slavery", or whether it should read, "... he ... was well known for speaking in the Senate in support of slavery." Bahnfrend (talk) 08:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Good eye. I tried a fix to read, An operator of a large cotton plantation in Mississippi with over 100 slaves, he was well known for his support of slavery in the Senate. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Davis - Whig? O RLY?

in 1843 became a Warren County Whig candidate for the state House of Representatives; he lost his first election - Are you seriously? It is possible?? --Muhranoff (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Good eye. I do not think it is possible. William J. Cooper noted in Jefferson Davis, American. p. 84-88, 98-100. has no search references on Warren County, but Page 93 reports, “At age 35, Jefferson Davis became the candidate for the state House of Representatives from Warren County and Vicksburg”. Later there is a quote which makes such an outlaw run highly unlikely, "With their preponderant majority in the entire state, the Democrats maintained the at-large election system to preclude any Whig's getting elected in an area of Whig strength."
Brian R. Dirck in his “Lincoln and Davis: imagining America 1809-1865” p. 76 reports, Davis seems never to have given any thought to becoming anything other than a Democrat.” Jefferson Davis in the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress reports Davis served as a Democratic Representative in the 29th Congress 1845-1846.
The time line does not track with Democratic Convention participation in 1842 and 1844. Elections were held then as now in even numbered years for the most part, was Mississippi different? I suggest we change "Whig" to "Democrat" per the preponderance of sources, even though I do not have a copy of either Cooper or Strode at hand except in online previews. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
If the source doesn't give the detail, then don't add it. If you can't find a directly supporting source, then just say that he ran in that county in that year and lost, without mentioning a specific party. It's better to be slightly incomplete than to manufacture something from inferences and oblique reference.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Text now just says he ran that year and lost in his district. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, it's your country, gentlemen, but from here (Russia) I see this: "In 1843... he agreed to run for the state's House of Representatives against a strong Whig candidate, Seargent S. Prentiss. Thought he lost...... Davis continued his involvement with Democratic politics..." (Jean Kinney Williams, Jefferson Davis: President of the Confederacy, Capstone, 2005 ISBN 0756510635 P. 28) It is possible to be against Whig candidate and be something else, then Democrat? I dont know. --Muhranoff (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry. I'm sure someone will read an actual source at some point with a useful level of actual detail. Until then, being not wrong feels better than being probably-maybe?-right. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

This [1] is the edit that added the erroneous material. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

It has been a while since I worked on this; I don't specifically recall this instance, but I'll check some sources and get it resolved. Omnedon (talk) 02:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

His house

Did they really call him or the house Jeff? And was this really his house?

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Jeff Davis House.

See also: http://www.metmuseum.org/collection/the-collection-online/search/268024

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Didn't flee in women's clothes?

The article denies the story of Davis attempting to flee Union soldiers while disguised in women's clothes, calling it a rumor. It seems fairly well supported by numerous eyewitnesses, including Davis's nephew and his wife, Varina Davis, as well as the soldiers present. Mrs. Davis said that she tried to get him past the troops by telling them he was her mother. All primary sources seem to agree on this with the exception of Davis himself, who claimed for the rest of his life that he never wore any clothing other than his own. Frellthat (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Argued against secession?

The article claims that Davis "argued against secession." Isn't that rather inaccurate? For years prior to Lincoln's election, Davis had been a strong advocate for the secession of his state, Mississippi, should an abolitionist President be elected [1]. When Mississippi finally seceded, he rather clearly said in his farewell speech to the Senate that he agreed with the decision and even took credit for having brought it about [2]. I'm not sure on what basis the line in the article can be justified. And it might also be noteworthy to mention the reason he cited in his Senate speech for his support of secession, which was his rejection of "the theory that all men are created free and equal". Frellthat (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Remove the passage then.65.209.62.115 (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
No, 1858 speech is now referenced to the National Park Service, “The Anti-Secessionist Jefferson Davis”, viewed July 27, 2015. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 03:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Then keep[ it.65.209.62.115 (talk) 12:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Did you read the speech? He's basically saying that the south will secede if the north doesn't stop agitating for abolition. It's not a very anti-secession speech at all. More like a "stop trying to abolish slavery or we're going to secede". "Speech at Boston, October 11, 1858" Moreover, he said very emphatically in his speech to the Mississippi legislature one month later that he did want Mississippi to secede if an abolitionist President was elected: “Speech to Mississippi Legislature, November 16, 1858”. I just don't think "he argued against secession" is an accurate summary of his views. It makes him sound like a reluctant secessionist. Frellthat (talk) 05:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Let's look at the speech you source, which sounds reluctant and bellicose as a good politician would have it. Davis anticipated a majority led by abolitionist Seward, then:

Were a majority "to seek by amending the Constitution, to pervert it from its original object,” of enshrining slavery, "I say to you here as I have said to the Democracy of New York, if it should ever come to pass that the Constitution shall be perverted...” … "Now, as in 1851, I hold separation from the Union by the State of Mississippi to be the last remedy—the final alternative.” Then, "Mississippi’s best and bravest should gather to the harvest-home of death." -- J. Davis before the Mississippi legislature, November 1858.

Of course, Lincoln was elected, not Seward, and he mentioned the proposed Amendment guaranteeing slavery against any such abolitionist majority in his inaugural address. The Civil War was unnecessary by the reasoning in these speeches. But once the Fire-Eaters began hijacking state governments, the Cooperationists felt they had no choice but war to guarantee the future of slavery. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

He actually put it much more simply: if an abolitionist was elected President, it would be their duty to secede:
"Whether by the House or by the people, if an Abolitionist be chosen president of the United States... I should deem it your duty to provide for your safety outside of a Union..." “Speech to Mississippi Legislature, November 16, 1858”
And then in 1861 when Mississippi did secede, he referred (in his farewell address) back to that speech and said that he still agreed with secession and even took credit for the decision to secede:
"I, however, may be permitted to say that I do think she has justifiable cause, and I approve of her act. I conferred with her people before that act was taken, counseled them then that if the state of things which they apprehended should exist when the convention met, they should take the action which they have now adopted." "Farewell Address to the US Senate, January 21, 1861"
I had to cut a lot out because dear God, that man was verbose. Frellthat (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, he was against secession before he was for it. No one said he was not a politician. “the state of things which they apprehended should exist” did not include a Constitutional amendment of abolition, nor an abolitionist President, nor an abolitionist majority in Congress, only a majority in Congress against the extension of slavery into the territories. The majority in Congress against the extension of slavery may have indeed become "justifiable cause" for him by 1861, or maybe the statehood of Kansas, or personal ambition, or he simply wanted to go along with his fellows. Hard to tell with politicians. But that was not the grounds laid out in 1858 when Davis favored union until and unless the Constitution were amended. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Davis, Jefferson. "Speech to Mississippi Legislature, November 16, 1858".
  2. ^ Davis, Jefferson. "Farewell speech to US Senate, January 21, 1861".

Restored sourced section

I restored the sourced section.

Many historians attribute the Confederacy's weaknesses to the leadership of President Davis.[1] His preoccupation with detail, reluctance to delegate responsibility, lack of popular appeal, feuds with powerful state governors, favoritism toward old friends, inability to get along with people who disagreed with him, neglect of civil matters in favor of military ones, and resistance to public opinion all worked against him.[2][3] Historians agree he was a much less effective war leader than his Union counterpart Abraham Lincoln.

References

  1. ^ Cooper 2008, pp. 3–4.
  2. ^ Wiley, Bell I. (January 1967). "Jefferson Davis: An Appraisal". Civil War Times Illustrated. 6 (1): 4–17.
  3. ^ Escott 1978, pp. 197, 256–274.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jefferson Davis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Marriage photo of Jeff Davis and Varina Howell

I removed the photoshopped picture of Jeff Davis with wife...it is an obvious photo shop and has been floating around the internet for awhile. I'm distraught that this social desirability bias has gone on for so long. If you click the picture, the original writer (not I) sums up this debacle succinctly.72.170.224.43 (talk) 09:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

It's really curious to have two anonymous sources purportedly attesting to having posted "a more accurate" example of the daguerrotype. According to what authority and what source? This photo looks photoshopped itself. It isn't just social desirability bias that causes many viewers to think Varina Howell may have been of mixed race. This is the reaction of numerous people to the NYPL daguerrotype and other photos (including of her as an older woman). If so, her ancestry could be just another example of our complex, multi-racial American history. But that does not matter. The provenance of the NYPL daguerrotype is known; it was owned and donated by Howell's granddaughter. Aaccording to the Encyclopedia of VA, people in Richmond commented about Howell Davis, saying that she looked like a mulatto or Indian. Editors should not be speculating about the biases of people looking at these images; what about your own biases? Paul Heinegg in his Free African Americans in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Maryland and Delaware (also available on the Internet), has documented there were many families of free people of color established in Virginia before the Rev. War - and most were descended from white mothers.Parkwells (talk) 12:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
It is inappropriate to substitute an image that itself looks photoshopped for the original one in Wikimedia Commons from the NYPL, with its provenance documented. Parkwells (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I restored the documented image of the daguerrotype from the NYPL, which has provenance. Also restored it in the Varina Davis article. Parkwells (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
The current version of the picture has obviously had its background obliterated, but that's not uncommon in old photographs. It looks to me like old work, not modern photoshopping. Note that, in a previous copy, one can see bits of the original background at the edges, suggesting that the background was physically (not digitally) airbrushed out while the picture was in a frame or mat. (The current copy has been cropped to eliminate these glimpses of the original background.)
If Varina Davis had African or Amerindian ancestry, and Jefferson Davis knew about it, that would probably be a notable fact (assuming it was supported by reliable authority); but it's worse than silly to make an issue (to what end, anyway?) merely on the basis of subjective impressions of her superficial appearance in a single photograph. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree. I've not been able to find sufficient documentation on her maternal ancestry. Varina Davis' biographer Joan Cashin (See Howell Davis article) found that her maternal grandmother Martha Graham (b. VA) would have been considered illegitimate, because her parents George Graham and Susan McAllister never married. Cashin's Davis biography won the Fletcher Pratt Award from the Civil War Roundtable of New York and was a finalist for three other prizes. Cashin also wrote that George Graham was a Scots-Irish immigrant. McAllister was born in VA at the end of the 18th century. By state law, if McAllister were known to be of mixed race, they would have been prohibited from marrying.Parkwells (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Undid Vandalism. PBS uses the actual photo...not my opinion. Stop being ethnocentric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.45.96.88 (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
It is not vandalism or ethnocentric to use a photo from the New York Public Library that has documented provenance from Davis' family. This photo is more complete than the one the above editor keeps trying to substitute. The above anonymous editor has provided no cite to demonstrate that PBS has a better or more accurate photo than that of the NYPL, and is alleging incorrect intention to my changes.Parkwells (talk) 02:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Stop being obscurantist. http://civilwardailygazette.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/davis.jpg67.45.96.55 (talk) 15:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

It is not vandalism or being obscure to use a well-documented source, the New York Public Library, which has provenance for its image, donated by a descendant of Varina Howell. The Civil War Daily Gazette, an online interest group, has no basis for claiming it has a more accurate image. Stop the false accusations.Parkwells (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
This edit-warring and name-calling is objectionable and unencyclopedic. The differences between these two copies of the same daguerreotype are trivial at best. The anonymous IP editor's repeated accusations of "ethnocetrism" (read, racism) seem to indicate that she or he imagines some significant difference between the two copies, having to do with Varina Davis's ancestry; but he or she offers no argument in support of any such belief, nor any explanation as to why such a difference would be significant, if it existed. Parkwells supplies a copy with a reliable provenance, and the anonymous IP editor provides no justification for replacing it: we are commanded merely to accept his or her preference without any argument or authority to support it. If there's any "authoritarianism" in this embarrassing episode, that would seem to be an example.
The best available version of the photograph, as far as I'm aware, and as close to the "original" or "actual photo" as we're likely to get, is on the New York Public Library's web site, which identifies it as being "From a daguerreotype in the possession of their granddaughter, Mrs. George B. Webb, Colorado Springs, Colorado." That copy was evidently airbrushed (to obliterate the background) while in a frame or mat, which has since been removed (so that parts of the original background are visible), but no other alteration is suggested, and this was the copy preserved by the Davis family, who presumably knew what Mrs. Davis looked like. Neither of the copies being contended for entirely represents this copy, so I have taken the liberty of uploading it to the Commons and placing it in the article. I hope all concerned can accept this eminently authentic copy of the image. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 18:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance. I am glad to use this image from the NYPL with documented provenance and agree on your statement that it was preserved by the family (who should know) as representing Mrs. Davis. I have used this version in the Varina Howell article as well, replacing a now distorted version of the image.Parkwells (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Variants on the Web

I note that in the course of responding to the foregoing discussion I have found at least three versions of the Davises' wedding photo, with regard to the appearance of Mrs. Davis's face. There is, of course, the version found on the NYPL web site, and now used in the article.

Second, there is this image, from the Getty Images web site, a smaller version of which is to the right.

(It appears to me that both copies at issue in the late edit war were versions of this image.)

Third, there is this picture from Find-a-Grave. (I have not taken the trouble to upload the latter to the Commons.)

The third version is an obvious fake and doesn't resemble any other picture of Mrs. Davis. The first, to my eye, appears to have been manipulated, to exaggerate the breadth of her nose and the thickness of her lips. Note that the nose and mouth are not aligned with each other, or with the rest of her face. The second appears to me to be the most natural and symmetrical. Unfortunately, as far as we presently know, the first version has the better provenance, having reputedly come from Mrs. Davis's granddaughter, and must be presumed authentic (although, of course, it could still be a fake: there just isn't any evidence of that before us right now).

I have written to Getty Images, to see if they will provide any information concerning the provenance of their version. If I hear anything back from them, I'll report it here. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 22:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Jefferson Davis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jefferson Davis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jefferson Davis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jefferson Davis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jefferson Davis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jefferson Davis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Help with proper formatting of source

An addition was made regarding Jeff Davis being a member of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Confederate States of America and I've found a supporting source[2], but not the best at footnotes formatting. If someone could help to add it, I would be very appreciative, thanks. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to Omnedon for formatting the reference correctly, I can dig up these obscure documents (cir.1940); but listing them correctly has always been a challenge. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jefferson Davis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

More work needed

I came across this article Sunday morning and was surprised it had "Fine Article" status when that for Robert E. Lee only has "B" status. I had visited the Lee article on Lee-Jackson Day Friday and appreciated the improvement to the slavery subsection. I expected to see a similar subsection on this article, but didn't. Furthermore, I first reviewed the Final Years section, and noticed two obvious problems--saying that by then he only had one surviving child, and characterizing the man at whose house he died as a "historian". Plus, I had seen references elsewhere about Richmond's ex-Confederates as nearly buying his body for re-burial at Hollywood cemetery. Because this laptop has had space bar issues (and tho malware scans are clean, that software won't autoupdate), and the first one I tried to replace it with has a very odd shift key and the second one won't update beyond Windows 10 Version 1607, I went to my local library that evening to try the failed update again. I skimmed two books about Davis and made some corrections to this article before it closed. However, I don't know if I'll have time to try that (failed) update again today at a research library where I can review the recent Davis bio or other books cited. I couldn't find a cite to Davis' having been elected a Senator in 1875, including at the only book about Southern Reconstruction at our local Barnes and Noble during yesterday's MLK holiday. From that book and the Wikipedia articles about its two Republican Senators of this era, Mississippi politics was heated (if not at gunpoint). Today I emailed a retired historian who wrote about that era decades ago. I don't know if he'll have the inclination or time to fix this article.Jweaver28 (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

This article has recently been expanded in several burst of effort and so not all the new parts were fitted together in the best of manners. Some of the issues are new information I've yet to verify. As for children, they had 5, but only their daughter Margaret Howell Davis married and had a family. This is detailed in Varina Davis. In short, there are some issues of late, and new sections on death and funeral will take a while to research. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't know that this article needs to be "fixed". It went through extensive review to reach featured article status. But having said that, there's no such thing as a perfect article; every article can be improved. Many editors have worked on this article over a long period of time, so let's take care when "fixing" it, as this has at times cost articles their featured or good article status. Omnedon (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Jweaver28, can you please take care with your citation formats? Citations like "Cooper2000 pp. 614" and "Cooper2000 pp. 618-619" do not help the article. A space belongs between "Cooper" and "2000", and you may notice that existing Cooper references are formatted to link to the work in question in the bibliography. Short references need to be terminated with a period. A single-page reference would not use "pp.". An en-dash is to be used in a page range, not a hyphen. The Collins references also need to specify the year of the book. These issues may appear trivial but they're not, particularly for an article that already has featured article status. Omnedon (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I've fixed some of the citation issues, but I think there are more, and some of the new article text also needs copyediting. If others don't work on it, I will next chance I get. Omnedon (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for finding and fixing some of the many typos yesterday, Omnedon. I also do appreciate the work you've put in on this article, and especially that when you use book citations, they include page numbers. My pet peeve is repeated references to a book without any page numbers anywhere, but when I initially tried to replicate that linked citation formatting yesterday, it didn't work, so I did a quick fix before leaving for dinner. This morning, I brought my bigger laptop (with the split shift/page up key but more accurate keyboard) to the cafe in order to correct some more typos, as well as fix the disambiguation links, even though DAB solver initially seemed broken.
Anyhow, I added text during these past few days in order to get it up near Good Article status, not to trash it like a possibly paid editor did to my Harriett Starr Cannon article shortly after a man back on April 30, 2014 threatened "cyber warfare" and other attacks against me until I "shut up" about their real estate shenanigans in Virginia and elsewhere, as well as "shut up online." The dozens of threats seemed incredible at the time, but the deliberately anonymous sleazebags have been plaguing me via phone, mail, etc. for years, starting with a perjured affidavit about those threats (a different guy showed up in court) as well as ageist, racist and sexist epithets outside the courtroom. Tis is their high season, starting with another possibly paid wikipedia editor last month trying to convince me that "genealogy trumps history". No-message calls from various unattributed numbers resumed January 2, as did postcards with supposedly local numbers but fake addresses, and different middle-aged jerks yesterday and today came to sit a couple of tables away from me just after I posted on wikipedia. The cafe's not a library, but talking to oneself or blaring foxnews or something from tablets without earphones is rude, even if the young guy promising continued harassment way back then mentioned tracking and harassing me by phone and internet. What can I say but "Phew" and finish this?
I spent time at various libraries and B&N over the weekend and yesterday both because this article really wasn't up to snuff, as well as because my favorite wikipedia editing laptop wouldn't update nor finish a malware scan (nor would its replacement install needed Windows10 securities updates either there or at home via a USB/ethernet connection). Frankly, I'm not sure how this article reached GA much less FA status, given that the legacy section even back in 2013 stated that Davis was again elected to the U.S. Senate in 1875. That wasn't even in Appleton's Cyclopedia in 1915 (that being easily downloaded and reviewable for years). I'm not trying to denigrate your work with the citations, and appreciate the many photos as well as the bibliography's length. I'm sure the publishers appreciate the ICBN links.
However, at least the Later Years and Legacy sections haven't reflected the historical record or research consensus during the last couple of decades. Strode taught creative writing back in the 1950s, not history! LSU's Cooper (his name really should include "Jr.") wrote 2 relevant books--the 2000 book is the best recent Davis bio I could find at the research library, and his 2003 book is a condensed version of some of Davis' writing. Collins only wrote one relevant book per my shelf search as well as the bibliography. Frankly, the endnotes in the Cooper bio aren't perfect (the legal citations seem screwy), but the genealogy/research library I drove to yesterday had several earlier Davis bios which lacked both footnotes and endnotes. I haven't any inclination to review the recently reissued 3-paperback-volumes of Davis' Confederate History, nor have I reviewed Eric Foner's books (which probably should be included rather than Strode's and several others listed), just done triage on possibly the most important of several problem articles. I don't know the backgrounds of the three peer reviewers or whether they were tired by the time they reached those IMHO pretty obviously problematic sections; I hope they weren't ideologically biased or incompetent. I also don't know why this article's talk page has already been archived twice--neither archived version appears lengthy, and the pretty basic issue of this near-failure to address slavery and race relations mentioned early in the first archived talk page remains today. This is worrysome, IMHO, especially since this article's been featured several times in February, which is soon to arrive. IMHO, the Legacy section needs a copyedit worse than the material I've just added and cleaned up, and not just because I live in Arlington, Virginia. Since I've added considerable text, maybe pictures of Beauvoir can be added for further aesthetic balance, or a map of the cortege's route to Richmond. That said, I've neglected important personal business while trying to address this. Finally last night the Win10 Version 1709 update installed, so I need to drive westward. I'll be thinking of you in Indiana, though I don't know exactly where you live, or if you want to meet as my dogs and I drive through. I hope you're warm and dry. I don't expect to work more on this any time soon.Jweaver28 (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

When I experienced further computer problems last weekend, I stopped by the reference library to download antivirus software and also checked the two shelves of Jeff.Davis bios and books to learn what books had no foot nor endnotes. Fortunately, none of the five were in this wikipedia bibliography, although one by Herman S. Frey (1920-1999) did state that Davis "could" have been elected to the Mississippi Senate in 1875. BTW, Strode's books have chapter endnotes (which appear poor at a glance). While I respect Lt.Comdr. Frey's military service (as well as Davis's before secession), I don't think highly of his hagiographical description of Davis' postwar activities. I also noticed that the former wikipedia section resembles that posted on the Encyclopedia Virginia by a current military history professor, and emailed my concerns to that organization.Jweaver28 (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Confusing statement about "free slaves"

Under the heading "President of the Confederate States of America: Overseeing the Civil War efforts", the second and third sentences of the second paragraph read "While the North's population was almost entirely white, the South had an enormous number of black slaves and people of color. While the latter were free, becoming a soldier was seen as the prerogative of white men only." (emphasis added) This is confusingly written, as it appears to claim that "black slaves and people of color...were free" -- on the whole, a factually incorrect statement. Is it referring to freed blacks? Can anyone clarify this? Thanks. Bricology (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Dissolution of the Confederate Government

I thought Davis and his cabinet dissolved the Confederate Government on May 2, 1865, in Abbeville, South Carolina.Inkan1969 (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

They did. Jefferson in his subsequent writings noted that the Confederacy "disappeared". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Small detail of birth location

The article says "Coincidentally, Abraham Lincoln was born in Hodgenville, Kentucky, only eight months later, less than 100 miles (160 km) to the northeast of Fairview" but it looks like it's southeast of Fairview. Northeast of Fairview is into Ohio. Christianmusician06 (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Navbox?

There seem to be enough pages in Category:Jefferson Davis to justify the creation of Template:Jefferson Davis. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd advise against it. There is already a navbox for Davis at the bottom of the page, and that is more than sufficient. I used to be a big fan of the sideboxes here at Wikipedia, and was responsible for creating quite a few of them, but over the years I've come to realise how deeply unpopular they are with editors. One just needs to see the recent RfC on whether to add one to the Boris Johnson article to see evidence of that. There's a reason why a lot of the FA-rated political biographies here at Wikipedia (whether this article on Davis, or Vladimir Lenin, Jomo Kenyatta, Nelson Mandela etc) do not have sidebar navboxes. The political biographies that tend to have them are usually messy and of poor quality anyway. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Add link

There are several legal terms which are linked, for instance "estoppel" just a sentence or two prior, but "Adverse Possession" is not - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession

This can be found in the penultimate paragraph of the "Later Years" section

whoever has permission to edit, please add this link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.219.125 (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Please add to his page ..

See also

Richmond tears down Jefferson statue

This article is overdue for an update. Peter K Burian (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Is there a reason you are unable to update it? ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 13:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

citizenship

It's a sign of very sloppy editing and writing that this article is much too long and hard to follow because full of inappropriate details that smother essential info and even prevent editors from noticing essential missing info. For example, there are completely inappropriate amounts of information about Davis's business ventures and failures, but there's nothing about when and how his citizenship was revoked, which is especially bizarre since the article talks about it being restored. --Espoo (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Cartoon of Jeff Davis

I don't know what to do with this, as far as Davis is concerned, but I stumbled across a cartoon that to my imperfect knowledge is not much known. The ghost of John Brown, arising from his grave, is the hangman, Davis is in a birdcage, wearing a dress and carrying a sour apple. You can see it at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:John_Brown_exhibiting_his_hangman_(20380774421).jpg. deisenbe (talk) 11:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2021

Portrayals in Pop Culture

The Marvel comic Book character Jefferson Davis, the father of Spider-Man(Miles Morales) shares a name with him.

In the DC Comics book Icon and Rocket #2, Icon(Augustus Freeman) is portrayed as killing the president of the Confederacy, possible by decapitation. Ran76 (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. It needs to be notable enough to have been discussed in secondary sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

"he ... owned ... enslaved people"

doubly offensive. first, no one can own someone else. b), 'enslaved people' makes it sound quite passive. Should read simply "he ... enslaved as many as 113 people". The number located after 'enslaved' makes his performative aggression clear. --2607:FEA8:FF01:7EE4:8D7F:9F7F:8A46:DCFA (talk) 00:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. That was one of the horrors of slavery manifested in the slave states: white people, and black people too in the early days, could legally own other people who were black. Carlstak (talk) 01:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Just found out I’m inheriting a clock that was owned by Jefferson Davis. Are there any photos of him with a clock so I can see if it’s this one? This one has a Cameo on the pendulum and is wooden with gears showing thank you

Interested in finding photos of clocks he owned . I’m inheriting one he supposedly owned thank you 174.25.10.222 (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Seamstress Elizabeth Keckley

"It was reported in the media that Davis had put his wife's overcoat over his shoulders while fleeing." In Keckley's book, Behind the Scenes, she mentions visiting the Great Northwestern Sanitary Fair in Chicago, with a wax figure of Jefferson Davis dressed in the clothing he was captured in. Keckley, who made many articles for Varina Davis, claimed the item was a waterproof coat that she'd made for her. At the fair, the Voice of the Fair newsletter recorded Keckley claiming she'd made the coat while at the fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdPeggJr (talk • contribs) 03:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Remove editorialization

Under "Legacy"; "although the task of defending the Confederacy against the much stronger Union would have been a great challenge for any leader" is editorialization.98.11.8.101 (talk) 01:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

It's referenced to authoritative analysis, and not exactly a matter of controversy - why do you think it's problematic? Acroterion (talk) 01:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Even Gone with the Wind (1936) advocated the idea that the war goals of the Confederates were unattainable, right in its introductory chapters. :
    • "“The trouble with most of us Southerners,” continued Rhett Butler, “is that we either don’t travel enough or we don’t profit enough by our travels.... I have seen many things that you all have not seen. The thousands of immigrants who'd be glad to fight for the Yankees for food and a few dollars, the factories, the foundries, the shipyards, the iron and coal mines — all the things we haven't got. Why, all we have is cotton and slaves and arrogance. They'd lick us in a month." "Dimadick (talk) 08:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Grammar

I am not a native speaker in English, but this sounds wrong:

[…] four medical students who were sons of Confederate veterans and a Catholic nun attended Davis in the Charity Hospital […]

Are there commas missing? If not, could you give the name of the nun who gave bith to four sons?--Zentraler Leser (talk) 13:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Good Lord yes, that is hilarious and appalling! Thanks @Zentraler Leser. I have had a quick go at removing the unintended bizarreness by simply reordering the sentence a bit. No doubt an expert will be along soon and can tidy it up to the highest Wikipedia standards, but at least it no longer suggests that the sister forgot her vows quite so thoroughly ... cheers DBaK (talk) 10:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

This is white washed, lost cause, propaganda

Most of this has little to do with a biography of Jefferson Davis. If you have specific, actionable suggestions for changes to this biography,please make them without casting aspersions at the other editors who collectively wrote the article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

If I didn’t know better I’d think that Jefferson Davis was just a guy who wasn’t a great president but had a bunch of memorials and was seen as hero by the South. Oh and there were 3 lines about how racist and how he enslaved people (not slaves, you take away their humanity when you describe black people as property). You also always follow the few lines where you discuss slavery those immediately by articles defending him. You don’t touch on any of his vile speeches and writing where he demonizes black people. His killing, torturing and raping of black enslaved people. You don’t talk about how he ripped families apart and sold children. He was a white supremacist who faought for white supremacy. You don’t discuss why all these monuments begin t spring up surrounding him and other confederate leaders as a push back against civil rights. You don’t discuss how black people feel about him when you claim he was a hero to the south. You don’t discuss how Black people are told they will be fined if they try to change names or monuments dedicated to this avowed racist. This was clearly wrote by a right winger who refuses to acknowledge the horrors this man committed. It would be like if the Article about Hitler had 3 lines on the Holocaust but immediately following those lines stated that “some historians believe that Hitler was Anti-Semitic.” This is literally one of the worst pages I’ve ever seen on Wikipedia and whoever wrote this should be ashamed of themselves. Jefferson Davis killed more people than John Wayne Gary yet you talk about him like you are talking about Jimmy Carter and it’s a shame this article is allowed to stay up on Wikipedia. These articles serve to propagate the lost cause narrative and diminish the horrors people like Jefferson Davis did to an entire race of people. Both before the civil war and how his beliefs (and people like him) directly led to segregation and Jim Crow. 70.95.137.92 (talk) 06:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Request for reliable sources

@Wtfiv, Hog Farm, and Guerillero: I have at last cleared space in my sandboxes and my to-do lists to take this (a full rewrite) on. Therefore: I wish to know which sources I should use or that you recommend, so that I can get started more quickly and have a basis at the get-go for knowing what future, possible sources are good or bunk. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 10:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I think Wtfiv has made it through everything except for the legacy so far, so they'll have an idea on what status things are in. Hog Farm Talk 14:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi Vami!
It's great to hear you have things wrapped up. I've completely reworked a draft of the article all the way to legacy. I think all the sources currently in the main article are reliable, though some good ones are a bit old. I would would like to give a draft of the legacy section a try. Attempting to do it well and keeping balance with such a controversial figure feels like a real challenge. Wtfiv (talk) 16:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Well dang, nice work! Seems you already have everything in hand. Coincidentally, I'm at the same point with Bolívar, so I will probably keep doing that rather than getting in your way. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 00:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Hmmm. I thought Wtfiv was doing the rewrite, 73.5% at this point. Carlstak (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

FAR Notice

I am a citation and source specialist, so I am judging this article based off of my skills. There may be issues beyond those that I bring up. Fails 1b, 1c, and 1d

  • Family background is unreferenced
  • Childhood needs more citations
  • Sourcing is old and relies on sources from Jim Crow era southern universities and neo-Lost Cause sources. I am especially skeptical of ones publish before 1965. The sourcing is poor enough that it brings the neutrality of the article into question.
  • The legacy section is choppy and glosses over the scholarly consensus on Davis. Further, without any criticism, it verges on being pro-Lost Cause
  • Citation style is inconsistent

-- Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the above - Strode basically worshipped Davis, Patrick and Coulter are badly dated and shouldn't be used, Allen should be avoided (one review on Project MUSE notes that she's so partisan in her writing that he blames the caning of Charles Sumner on Sumner, claims that slave travel passes gave slaves a positive sense of belonging, dances around referring to slavery and slavery, etc), and Dodd 1907 is just far too old to be used. These sources don't belong in a featured article. Hog Farm Talk 14:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@Guerillero: would you be interested in bringing this to WP:FAR? Sometimes listing at FAR encourages editors to address concerns. Z1720 (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
@Z1720: I will, probably on Monday -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

As mentioned in FAR. I'll start working on citations and formatting, starting at the early biography and working from there. It most likely will include trimming and possibly expansion as needed. I'll probably notate in talk as I work through the material, and ping the interested FAR editors if I see bigger issues. Wtfiv (talk) 06:06, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

FAR work: Beginning Biography

I've begun work on the "Birth and Family Background". Here's some initial notes:

  • As per FAR comments by Guerillo, I'm relying mostly on Cooper, 2000 and Davis, 1991. But I am also using Eaton, 1977. I agree he is more partisan, but his sourcing can be good, so for some factual material he provides additional detail the other two may miss; in my view, he just needs to be used cautiously.
  • This first section was a bit rougher than I anticipated. Much of the information was not corroborated by the sources and needed to be rewritten.
  • I also used the sfmn template quite a bit because even the two major sources, Dodd and Cooper generally agree on the big picture but will disagree on details. Where they differ on details, I summarized what they agreed on, but cited both so readers can see the difference in opinions. I will try to keep the sfmn's use to these points of occasional difference in perspective and interpretation.
  • I am templating sources as I go, and linking them to full texts when possible.
  • This first paragraph has three footnotes. I'm aiming to keep footnotes to a minimum, but this first paragraph seemed to call out for them. Issues surrounding Davis's name and genealogy are muddy and footnotes seem the cleanest way to keep the narrative moving without getting mired in the details.
  • First footnote is a shortened version of the original, which is about his initial F. Cooper suggests that this may be an unsupported point by Strode. I noted Cooper's point without going into detail. Interested readers can check the sources to make up their mind.
  • Second footnote is about his birth year. This is interesting. Both Davis and Cooper acknowledge that the issue remains in doubt, but the books state 1808 as certainty. I followed precedent, and left a footnote to show how Davis and Cooper disagree. BTW: The Rice University site, which houses Davis's paper states 1807 or 1808 as well.
  • Third footnote is about geneology. All sources agree that Samuel Davis's life story is unclear. Davis's discussion on paragraph 4 is particularly interesting. He confusingly talks about a mistaken Evan Davis and an actual Evan Davis. But in general, the sources agree, though their story about Evan and Samuel's wife Jane is different than the original uncited paragraphs. Eaton was useful here and pointed to an accessible, though self-published genealogy of the Davis family. I cited it not as a source, but as a cf., in the footnote. It looks like it did a good job of trying to collect the existing information on Evan Davis, showing all the uncertainty.
  • I removed the point about Abraham Lincoln being born near Davis's birthsite. I find this interesting, but this article is about Davis, not Lincoln. Mention of Lincoln at this time seems out of context. I thought about footnoting it as an interesting aside, but I felt three footnotes in a single paragraph was already pushing the limit. If there's a consensus that Lincoln needs to be mentioned in the first paragraph, it can be sourced. Wtfiv (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

"Finis" is not Finis

Should Davis's middle name be given as Finis? Cooper, Hattaway, and even the very sympathetic Allen (who gives credit to Hattaway for making her aware of it) all either state or suggest it is a product of Strode, whose work is mentioned as unreliable in the FAR, and who presents this statement without citation. Jefferson did use F. as his middle initial at times, but there's no evidence regarding the name. The issue needs to be acknowledged, so a footnote seems in order. But should just the initial be given, and "Finis" be put in the footnotes? Or should it be left as is, with the F. being discussed in the footnotes? Wtfiv (talk) 03:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I've always heard the Finis story, but given the reputation of Strode and what the sources say about Finis, this seems like a situation where it's best to go with just the initial and footnote Finis. Hog Farm Talk 03:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, Hogfarm. I've made the change for now and changed "Finis" to "F." As Guerillero's comment points out, Strode's work is problematic. He's considered a major biographer of Jefferson- and I suspect his work has had a huge effect on the post-1950s understanding of Davis- but he was an English professor who specialized in creative writing. That's not necessarily a problem in its own right, but when its combined with the spottiness of his sourcing- such in the case of "Finis"- it makes for some head scratching. It seems clear that Strode's version is very influential, and opens the question why the academic community took it as seriously as it did. (Perhaps because it quotes liberally from Jefferson's letters?) Eaton, who should have known better in spite of his own biases, speaks well of it as "pleasing" even as he justifiably critiques the poorly sourced biography by the historian McElroy biography as "superficial." Wtfiv (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
BTW: I also forgot to reference this Rice University site. Rice is home to the Jefferson Papers, so they are probably one of the more reliable online sites. (An aside: I wish I had access to more than just Volume 1 of his papers. Primary sources can't be used in Wikipedia, but they sure give insight while writing.) I may add it. It feels like I'm approaching overkill, but it does give readers a direct link for another source. Wtfiv (talk) 07:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Reworking early career and marriages

Reworked sections with marriages. In particular, built the marriage with Varina into the timeline of Davis's developing political career. Notably shortened section on the Davis family. The long genealogy moved the focus away from Davis and even into the twentieth century. The Rice University links provide decent summaries for those who want to know more. The Bleser article also provides a concise summary of Varina's struggles in the marriage. Emphasized Joseph's role a bit more, not just in providing the Davis with the means to become a planter but in prodding Davis toward a political career. The sources all discuss it. Herman was added as a source to give the view more from Joseph's perspective. Removed final paragraph about Davis's ailments as it didn't fit into the narrative. I saved it, hoping to add parts later in the appropriate context. But for now it's a bit odd to discuss the effect of his war wounds on his personality before he served in the war where he received the wound. Also renamed sections to create a parallel structure and keep the focus on Davis's political development. Similarly, removed-but bookmarked- the Jim Limber story. If it has an appropriate place in the article, it'll be at the end of Davis's presidency. Wtfiv (talk) 07:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Non-wikiworld calls...I'll pick back up next Mon or Tues. Wtfiv (talk) 07:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
User-duck Thank you so much for cleaning up the page citations. I was plugging at it as I go, and figure to do a messy clean up at the end, but you've done a fantastic job! I very much appreciate it and it certainly makes editing so much easier! Wtfiv (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
@Wtfiv: - If you would like, I just read Woodworth 1990 earlier this month and remember it discussing about how Joseph Davis really helped get Jeff started. Do you want me to see if there's anything useful to supplement the existing text in Woodworth? Hog Farm Talk 13:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Please do! A sentence or two around in the planter section will be great. (I'll look it up to read, too, The issue has me curious.)
I couldn't find sources, so I didn't put it in, but it's pretty clear that Jefferson started attending conventions in the role of representing his brother's Hurricane enterprise around Vicksburg. (And thinking that Jefferson is representing the Vicksburg area adds an interesting tie-in to your larger project right now!, IT makes me realize something I never thought about: beyond Vicksburg's strategic value, there was also the symbolic value : the conquest of the Vicksburg area allowed the north to argue that Jefferson couldn't even defend his own property). Wtfiv (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
@Wtifv: - I haven't seen anything that takes up the couldn't defend his own land angle, although Woodworth discusses Davis having an extra interest in Vicksburg due to his plantation being there. (I'll need to add that to my Vicksburg draft once I get back to that during the weekend).
On the subject at hand, I've added a sentence from Woodworth about a major illness suffered by Davis during his time up in what is now Wisconsin - Woodworth ties the bout of pneumonia to his later poor health, so it seems relevant. I've also swapped out one of the cites to Fleming 1920 about his bad behavior at West Point to one from Woodworth. Fleming is quite old and Davis is still a lightning rod in American culture, so I think it's better to use modern sources instead of very old ones when practical. One thing that might get sticky later is the need to distinguish between Joseph Emory Davis and fellow Jeff relative Joseph R. Davis. Hog Farm Talk 03:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, both are improvements. I think a more updated site is good, (though I may use an older cite once in a while, as long as it points to primary resources. If you find a better one that's more recent or know that its been superceded, please fix.) I removed reference to Woodworth within the text as just a stylistic preference. I dislike intruding narrative with the names of academics. I feel it is a kind of advertisement for the person popping into a story out of context and a signal to the reader that the point is contentious and we're relying on an appeal to authority to make a point that is weak. . If you feel one citation isn't solid enough to stand on its own, let me know and I'll find another.But I think the point emerges with this explicit mention and citation supplemented by reading the citations in this pargraph of Davis and coooper.
(In legacy, I feel the issue is more flexible, as there so much of legacy is more about opinions, though even there I try to minimize it.) If you feel strongly about this, please let me know. Wtfiv (talk) 17:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
The point in question certainly isn't a controversial point, so omitting the reference to Woodworth in the text is a good call there. I do think we will want to be attributing fairly heavily in the legacy, because of the nature of Davis's legacy. Hog Farm Talk 17:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Excellent! I suspect you are right, but my hope is we can manage it without doing so, or at least keeping it to a minimum. Fingers crossed! Wtfiv (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Reworked senator and Secretary of War

This section has been enlarged, I'm hoping to make up for it by trimming later in the article, but it seemed that the political issues that Davis was directly involved in during his terms as Senator and Secretary of War needed to be addressed in more detail. In part, to show Davis's role in the events leading toward the Civil War and in part to illustrate why Davis was the candidate of choice when chosen as the president of the confederacy. Wtfiv (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll try to look over this at some point. Unfortunately, I've become so busy that Sunday is probably my only realistic chance to take more than a 15-minute look. Hog Farm Talk 19:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Sounds good, Hog Farm! Thanks. I too am overwhelmed, though this is my Wikipedia focus for now. Wtfiv (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Issues on President of Confederacy

I'm about to begin the President of the Confederacy Section. It seems to me that the "Strategic Failures" section is an evaluation of Davis and not a description of what he did. Though I'm sure his personality and decisions impacted the outcome of the war, the extent of his influence is a topic of debate. My preference is to use the existing material to guide a description of his actions during the war, but leave the evaluation of his responsibility for a subsection of legacy. Any issues or concerns? Wtfiv (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. Carlstak (talk) 03:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I've reworked the first part of this section. I think it may work better organized by Davis's Civil War policies during his presidency. I've started the process. I reworked the inauguration, the beginning of the Civil War, created a section called "Civil War Policies" and added a section called national policies. Wtfiv (talk) 09:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Foreign policy section reworked; odds and ends

Reworked section that is now called foreign policy. It has more detail and a little more emphasis on Davis. Added paragraph on Davis's cabinet. Merged military policies, but this will be reworked as per comments above. To make room for discussions of Davis's actions in legacy, removed the list of monuments in legacy section and moved material to appropriate location in the already existing List of Monuments to Jefferson Davis article. deleted duplicate links. Wtfiv (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Added Financial policy section; added a few photographs

Created a new section. Added some length to the article, but may be able to make up for that later. It seemed that the financial policy's are a key part of a war administration. Added two new photographs to the article, returned an old one as it now has a location where it seems appropriate. Wtfiv (talk) 08:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Completely reworked Civil War section

The previous version felt more like half of a "legacy" section focused on why Davis is at fault for losing the war. The new rewrite is a limited summary of the Civil war from the perspective of Davis's concerns. For this draft, the article increased 577 words, putting it at 12401 words of prose, 72 words longer than when I started. (16 words shorter if I count before Hogfarm deleted the trivia.) I hope the extra prose is worthwhile, as Davis's role in the military action- and its impact on his political and personal actions- is one of his defining characteristics; Unlike Lincoln, he was frequently involved in the operational details. I try to keep the focus on generals and political figures that Davis interacted with. The campaigns are kept summary, and I intentionally avoided mentioning any Union generals or armies, as these weren't Davis's focus. Instead, I try to give a sense of Davis's interactions with the top generals, especially Lee, Joseph Johnston, and Bragg. Polk had a big influence on Davis, but he's often in subordinate role, so gets less mention, but his mentions are notable. I'm hoping this version will open up a balanced appraisal- pro and con- of Davis's role as commander in chief.

I added two new secondary sources. But, I added primary sources for Davis's addresses, one for each year of the war, so readers can take a look at the full text of what he says. It's often eye-opening. I've reworked the images as well. I'll try to keep going, but non-wiki world calls for the weekend, so I may take a break. Wtfiv (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Side note: The potential sources for this are overwhelming, but I primarily relied on four Davis-focus sources, except for Stroker (2010) who gives a good strategic/grand strategic overview that addresses Davis's issues from a more global perspective. In this section, I used multiple sources again because the Civil War material can get contentious. The purpose of the multiple sources is not to hammer a point, but to point the readers to the different ways the same event can be interpreted. This is particularly clear with Cooper (2000) and McPherson (2014) Though it seems clear to me that McPherson very often references Cooper's 2000 biography (as does Hattaway & Beringer, 2002, though they are explicit about it._ And all three of them seem to lean on Woodworth (1990) at times. I like using both because they come at Davis from two perspectives. Both are fair, but Cooper is more sympathetic. Both express a respect for Davis in his situation, though McPherson admits his is more grudging. In my opinion, Woodworth remains most critical. All make great points for comparison in the legacy. Wtfiv (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Images

Colorized daguerreotype of Davis
I've been captions, trying to make them consistent with FA articles that I've worked with. For variety, I've also been working with images as I go, I've added a colorized version of a daguerreotype of Davis. In my view, the change doesn't alter the image's recognizability, helps make the picture less similar to the one preceding it, adds color variety to the article, and makes Davis seem more "flesh and blood". The colorization is from this century. It was done by an editor (who says the eye color was researched.) Any concerns with keeping it, as the colorization is not historical? If there's a consensus that the black and white is better, it's easy to revert. Wtfiv (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
I would prefer the original or the restored version, rather than the colorized one. The description page of the image file on Wikimedia Commons rather deceptively links the word "research" to a Google query, "jefferson davis" "blue eyes (without the enclosing quote marks to "blue eyes"), which is not remotely a citation of any research or of a reliable source, although one of the results links to a Jstor article, "A Theory of Jefferson Davis" by N. W. Stephenson, published in 1915, that has a note on page 75: "Mrs. Davis speaks of his 'beautiful blue eyes'". Using the colorized version is not a big deal to me, though. Where are all the editors who have this article on their watchlist? How about a response?;-) Carlstak (talk) 02:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Carlstak Thanks for looking up the reference! I've updating and archiving citation on the Wikimedia Commons photo pages of Davis as I've been going along, but I overlooked clicking the "research" link to check it out. I tracked Varina's quote, " He said little, but my mother was struck by his beautiful blue eyes", quote to her memoir of Davis: * Davis, Varina (1890). Jefferson Davis, ex-president of the Confederate States of America, a memoir, Vol I. New York : Belford Co. on p.51. I'll update the Wikimedia image sight with the source, quote and link too. (Even if we don't use the image, it's good to have a valid source.) I'm good with either image. Let's see what others think. I added a more descriptive edit summary. If there's no other comments, I'll revert it. Wtfiv (talk) 02:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm going to let the image sit for a bit. Once I've done more editing. I'll ping a few folk, and see what they think. Wtfiv (talk) 23:27, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Carlstak, I think enough time has passed. Secretary of War Davis has lost is colorized daguerreotype. Beside you, nobody else weighed in! Wtfiv (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice, Wtfiv, but I hope you didn't do it only on my account. If you really want to use it, it's fine with me. I find the lack of engagement from other editors regarding your changes, other than Guerillero and Hog Farm, to be a little eerie. Maybe people are intimidated by the FAR imprimatur? Carlstak (talk) 02:04, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for being open! I may put it back. We did find a reference to support it, but I think I like it because it breaks up the daguerreotype monotony. I agree the quiet interesting. I'm hoping it means I'm not doing too badly! Wtfiv (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Jefferson and his generals
"President and Generals C.S.A." (Jefferson Davis surrounded by Generals Robert E. Lee, A.P. Hill, J.E.B. Stuart, Braxton Bragg, Joseph E. Johnston, John Morgan, Thomas J. Jackson, and Beauregard)

While waiting for responses to a colored image of Davis, I just uploaded and posted another image in the article: Davis and his Generals. It's the same image used in his book by the samename. But I have two issues with it.

  • First, I don't know enough to be able to identify three of the generals in it. They are listed as Sterling Price, Benjamin Cullin and Thomas Jefferson Simmons, but I could not match them. And, to my knowledge, Simmons was not a general. Could someone match them. If possible, could someone update this wikimedia image with the names? Or leave them here, and I'll update.
    Fantastic, Hogfarm! I appreciate it! I'll update the wikimedia image site. Two down. I wonder about Simmons too. My first guess is that is is a misidentification. And you are right. The lithograph is 1861, so everyone is still unproven, I bet. But the 1963 photos are the ones who made it through the difficult year of '62 If I swapped pictures, I'd swap the pictures for the years too. Wtfiv (talk) 06:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
  • I like the 1861 lithograph, but I'm wondering if the photograph set to the right from 1863 may be better? The lithograph has the following who are mentioned in the article: Polk, Lee, Beauregard and Joseph Johnston; this image has Lee, Bragg, Johnston, and Beauregard. Thoughts? Preferences? Wtfiv (talk) 03:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
I think you mean "1863 photos", @Wtfiv:.;-) The "Thomas Jefferson Simmons" chapter of Men of Mark in Georgia: A Complete and Elaborate History of the State from Its Settlement to the Present Time by William J. Northen says:
"Colonel Simmons served with the army at Chancellorsville, Spottsylvania Court House, the Wilderness and other battles. He was with the army in Maryland and Pennsylvania. His gallantry was marked in many hard fought battles and, just before the surrender, he was recommended by Generals Thomas Wilcox, A. P. Hill and General Lee for promotion to Brigadier General for distinguished gallantry on the field. The fall of Richmond soon afterward prevented the issuance of the commission." Carlstak (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Carlstak Hog Farm This ain't particularly Southern (but maybe it is), in spirit), but Namaste to both of you. You put me at ease. I'll keep looking in case the picture is of someone else, who lost "cred" in 1861, but I feel the footnote is now as best as it can be. The more I think about it, the more the 1861 picture begins to be the best, as it breaks up the "post facto" of "Lee's greatest generals". Davis didn't have ex post facto. Wtfiv (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm drinking sweet tea out of a Mason jar right now, so that should have the Southern covered. The American Art Collaborative also claims that Simmons is included. Further searching still brings up nothing that would suggest why Simmons would be viewed as prominent (his article mentions fighting at the Battle of Big Bethel, but the book I have about Big Bethel doesn't mention him at all), but I guess we're going to have to just go with it. Hog Farm Talk 02:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
"Sweet tea out of a Mason Jar." Too good! I'll keep looking for Confederate generals with mustache-free, full beards, (ala Lincoln), though they probably added the fashionable mustache by 1863 if they were still working for the government! Wtfiv (talk) 03:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Here's a auction site recording a sale of the "generals" selling image that says the Simmons is James Simons ("Simmons"). It seems to make sense, according to this Library of Congress site, he was Jefferson's first appointed general officer and led the attack on Ft. Sumter. I couldn't find a younger photograph of him to verify though.
This page selling his autograph says he ended up enlisting as a private, which may explain why he disappeared. But his symbolic role as "first general" and "first to fight" makes sense, and his disappearance would explain why a slightly more famous Simmons was substituted for him. And now, there's not even a Wikipedia page for him. Wtfiv (talk) 08:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Later Life, Death and Burial

Substantially reworked this section using a summary style. Many points in the sections, such as Brierfield or discussion of Davis's beliefs that had citations that internally contested the secondary source (e.g., comments on insufficient sourcing of Cooper.) Removed most points elaborating on people and situation secondary to the narrative, shortened the description of the funeral and reburial. However, I did create a spin-off article that kept the detailed descriptions. Once I'm done with this section, I'm also going to create a spin-off bibliography that includes both "Further Reading" and "sources". These new sections will need some more proof-reading, which I will be doing as well. (And please, anyone else is welcome to help!) Wtfiv (talk) 00:12, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Legacy

Hog Farm Guerillero Carlstak and anybody else. I'm almost ready to tackle the legacy. As I may have mentioned earlier, I think legacy needs three subsections in Legacy:

  • Attitudes on Slavery. This seems less controversial, but there are nuances that need to be worked out.
  • Evaluation of his role as military leader- This is argued on both sides.
  • Role in Lost Cause- This seems complex and ties into the previous, though I think it is a slightly different issue.

Agree? Disagree? Wtfiv (talk) 00:12, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Agree heartily. It will be interesting to see what you do with his role in the Lost Cause. The Lost Cause was gospel in my Jeff Davis and Robert E. Lee-worshipping family down through the generations, but I think it died out with mine. I always wanted a full Confederate uniform available to order from the Sears catalogue when I was a little kid, but I'm glad I got a telescope and chemistry set instead. We were definitely brainwashed. ;-) Carlstak (talk) 03:10, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Once more, you have me laughing, Carlstak! Wtfiv (talk) 04:16, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
I think these would make good subsections. I'm going to be traveling over the Thanksgiving holiday though so I won't be able to follow this as closely as I'd like. Hog Farm Talk 03:23, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Hogfarm, Thanksgiving in the real world will be strange for me. Travelling and doing favors, with some hope of having a holiday. Have fun and be safe! Wtfiv (talk) 04:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm still working on the article, but the next week or two may look like not much is happening... Wtfiv (talk) 02:37, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
I've completed the first drafts of three sections: Political views on Slavery, Performance as commander in chief, and Legacy.
Carlstak Thank you so much for your ongoing copying editing and clean up, I appreciate it very much! It's a bit rough, but I wanted to get the basics in place. I hope I caught his role in perpetuating the lost cause adequately. (And I even integrated Guerrillero's comment about Longstreet, Gettysburg, and the lost cause.) Wtfiv (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
It's my pleasure, Wtfiv. I enjoy copy editing; it forces me to really focus on and read all the actual words of an article (or at least a section), rather than scanning it and zeroing in on the parts that most interest me. I learn more that way.;-) Carlstak (talk) 02:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

HF

I've got a bit of time to go through the Civil War material briefly, although it's about midnight in my time zone so these will have to be quick-hitters for now. (Only reviewing the Civil War section for now as that's what I'm most familiar with).

Thanks Hog Farm, here's the diff with the changes I made based on the comments below. Wtfiv (talk) 08:47, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "In the meantime, Davis appointed General P. G. T. Beauregard" - Yes, this is a bit nit-picky but this is one of my pet peeves. "General" is/as the common name for the Confederate full general rank, so extra care needs to be taken when referring to Confederate officers simply as general. Per Ezra J. Warner, Generals in Gray, Beauregard was a Brigadier General at this time, and wasn't promoted to General until July. This repeatedly pops up, and in a few cases this is their proper rank (Lee, the Johnstons, etc) but in most cases this isn't. I can dig around in Warner and a few other sources if you're unsure as to what/if some of these need corrected to
  • Take a look at what I've done, please change any you think need correction.
  • I'll give this a close look-through once I get back from my Thanksgiving trip. Hog Farm Talk 21:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
  • " Beauregard was upset because he was not given sufficient credit for his ideas and abilities;" - I don't have time to dive too deeply into my personal library, but I think it may be better to phrase this as he felt that he wasn't given sufficient credit. Beauregard was known for having a bit of an ego problem (see Woodworth, pp. 75-77 for some of Beauregard's self-aggrandization after Manassas)
  • Put in "felt". (Beauregard certainly saw himself a certain way; I tried to avoid how appropriate the judgements were. Reading about the Johnston, Davis, and Beauregard feuds after the war, it seems hard to judge. They strike me as prickly characters, but if the proof is in what they actually accomplished, that's another story...
Another aside in post-hoc evaluations of competence: In his 1890 article on Robert Lee, Davis very delicately offers to the reader considering Lee as a scapegoat for ultimately losing the war. He implicitly raises the "all was lost on the second day of Gettysburg" theory, suggesting that was Lee's lack of firmness in giving orders that may have lost the battle. pp. 64-65 Wtfiv (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "but Davis supported Polk's action" - We can't get into too great of detail here because the article is already super long, but Woodworth gives a bit of a different spin on things. Per p. 40, Davis sent Walker a note saying Telegraph promptly to Genl Polk to withdraw troops from Ky & explain movements" but then later per p. 41 Davis seemingly began to lose his resolve and p. 40 again sums the whole thing up as Davis handling things in a tentative, wavering manner
  • modified this adding "initially", feel free to add more if you want.
  • I've briefly elaborated on this a bit. Hog Farm Talk 21:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "Walker resigned as secretary of war and was replaced by" - is it worth noting that 1) Walker was incompetent (Woodworth pp. 22 and 23) and 2) that Davis was applying some pressure to be rid of Walker as well (Woodworth p.41)
  • Please fix as you see fit. I just mention that he resigned, I'm trying to avoid major judgements: That gets really messy as in cases like Bragg, Hood, Longstreet and J. Johnston. :Reading Woodworth, he has definite ideas about how they rank (Reminds me a bit of Freeman). If you think they need to be added or modified, please do.
  • I think your point about trying to avoid major judgments makes sense, and on second thought this isn't a necessary place for additional detail. Hog Farm Talk 21:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "Beauregard took command, first fell back to Corinth, Sumner County, Tennessee, " - No, Beauregard withdrew to Corinth, Mississippi, which was a major rail hub
  • Fixed. Error of post-hoc ambiguity fixing- knew better There may be many such errors. Fixed.
  • " Lee repelled another invasion of Virginia at the Battle of Fredericksburg" - I don't think the "repelled another invasion" is great wording. Yes, Lee beat back the Union attacks, but he didn't really repel the invasion because the Union army stuck around on the other side of the Rappahannock River in Confederate territory for months until the Chancellorsville campaign started.
  • Put "stopped", does that work?
  • Yes, that works better. Hog Farm Talk 21:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
  • "Union advance at the battle of Chickasaw Bayou in January 1863" - while the Union troops didn't leave the area until January 1863, the battle itself was fought in December 1862
  • Fixed.
  • "hey crossed below the town and captured landing below Vicksburg aiming to encircle it." - something has gone wrong with this sentence grammatically
  • Here's my try at a fix: They crossed the river south of the town, and head northeast aiming to encircle it.
  • "In July, Bragg attacked the Union army and forced it to retreat back to Chattanooga, which he then put under siege" - two things here. This needs to have a link/mention of the major Battle of Chickamauga worked in here, and the Confederate attack occurred in September, not July.
  • "who was constantly be outmaneuvered and forced to retreat toward Atlanta, Georgia" - something has gone wrong here grammatically; I'm too sleepy to try to puzzle this out
  • How about this: Union armies began advancing toward Johnston's army, who repeatedly retreated toward
  • "and was repulsed in an assault in Nashville in December 1864" - Hood never actually tried to attack Nashville directly, and the linked battle was a Union offensive. Maybe rephrase to "was repulsed in a drive to Nashville in December 1864" and switch the link to Franklin–Nashville campaign?
  • Done repulsed on drive toward Nashville with link change.

@Wtfiv and Carlstak: - some of that's nit-picky, but a couple of those are minor factual errors. I am a bit concerned about what the length will be once the legacy section gets hammered out. It'll probably need spun off at some point, but I'm not the best person to be making length calls, because I managed to produce almost 8000 words in a rewrite of Thomas C. Hindman in an attempt to avoid a FAR there. Hog Farm Talk 06:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Hindman looks good. It's clean. I'm finding that presidential/royal figures are harder to get down. My experience with Jackson was they are two narratives in one, a biography article and a policy article.
But I think it can be done. The article is still down 1000 words from when you first deleted a bit of the fluff [ here]. Outside of the presidency section, most of the biography has been trimmed. Most of the new bulk in Presidency. Perhaps they can be shaved? Maybe the Civil War narrative? Having written it, its hard to see, as I want to catch the complexity of Davis's decisions so readers can judge his role in defeat themselves, but maybe much of it can go. I tried to focus it to give a Davissonian perspective, but it may just rehash what is done better elsewhere? Any thoughts or suggestions? I'll see what can be done to implement them. Wtfiv (talk) 08:47, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Guerillero

I am doing the first read through of the article since my return and it is like night and day. Great work to you all. I am blown away. Some thoughts:

  • The book was intended as a vindication of Davis's actions, reiterating that the South had acted constitutionally in seceding from the Union and that the North was wrong for prosecuting an unjust, destructive war. Additionally, the book explicitly downplayed slavery's role in the origins of the Civil War do sources tie it to the Lost Cause, because it sounds like it to me
  • We might want to link to Pickett's Charge (Another article in poor shape) as Longstreet's blunder at Gettysburg
  • The term Servants is confusing in a post-13th amendment world. Do we have any additional info about who telegrammed Varina?

--Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Guerillero It's good to hear from you! And thanks for the positive comment on the article's progress.
  • I'm planning on tying Davis's book to Lost Cause ideology in the sections near the legacy I'm currently working on. When I, please take a look again and let me know. (I'll ping again.)
  • I'd prefer to keep Pickett's charge out of the article as its too much in the fine grain. The role of Gettysburg in the defeat of the South remains debated, and the idea of Gettysburg being Longstreet's fault for losing the war is also part of lost cause ideology purveyed by Early.
  • Agree with this - Longstreet's claimed blunder is often attributed just as much to time-wasting on the day before as Pickett's Charge. Longstreet at Gettysburg isn't something we need to get into much at this article. Also, I'm surprised this vandalism lasted in the Pickett's charge article for over 3.5 years Hog Farm Talk 16:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Removed "servants" replaced it with "employees from Brierfield", "Employee" is a word used in the source. There's no mention of who did it specifically. It would be interesting to know.
Wtfiv (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2022

Poor grammar. Change the sentence, "Davis expressed that this would be accomplished by the Confederates continuing to show the Union they could not subjugated, and that he hoped continued resistance would convince the North to vote in a president who was open to making peace." To, "Davis expressed that this would be accomplished by the Confederates continuing to show the Union they could not be subjugated, and that he hoped continued resistance would convince the North to vote in a president who was open to making peace." Isaac Edit (talk) 03:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done --SamX 06:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
I tried to eliminate some of the redundancy in the sentences. Ovinus (talk) 06:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jefferson_Davis/Archive_2&oldid=1162934237"